Statutory appellate remedy and natural justice in reassessment proceedings: writ challenge treated as premature

A writ challenge to reassessment orders under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was treated as premature because the statute provided an appellate remedy. Rule 24 of the Bihar VAT Rules, 2005 was read to require notice, an opportunity to object, and recorded reasons, but not a separate personal hearing in the form claimed by the petitioner. As the record showed notices, appearance through counsel, filed objections, and hearing of counsel, the material did not establish ex parte action or a clear breach of natural justice. The grievance could be pursued before the appellate authority, so writ jurisdiction was not to be invoked at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging reassessment orders under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy, and whether the reassessment proceedings were vitiated for want of opportunity of hearing or breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The challenge arose from reassessment orders passed under Section 33 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and the petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution alleging denial of hearing under Rule 24 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. The Rule was read as requiring notice, opportunity to rebut and recording of reasons, but not as mandating a separate personal hearing in the manner asserted by the petitioner. On the record, notices were issued, the petitioner appeared through counsel, objections were filed, and the order-sheet showed that the counsel was heard. The Court therefore found no categorical basis to hold that the orders were passed ex parte or without opportunity of hearing. In view of the availability of the statutory appeal, the Court held that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked at that stage, particularly when the grievance regarding natural justice could be raised before the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at that stage and the challenge on the ground of denial of hearing was rejected as only a prima facie issue, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal.

---